Cultural complexities and scientific development

Methodological issues in psychology consist of a key aspect for the scientific development of the discipline. In this paper I elaborate on the reasons why I partially agree with Toomela's ideas, and why I also disagree with some of his arguments. The convergence refers to the need for a radical...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Integrative psychological & behavioral science 2007-03, Vol.41 (1), p.41-49
1. Verfasser: Branco, Angela Uchoa
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 49
container_issue 1
container_start_page 41
container_title Integrative psychological & behavioral science
container_volume 41
creator Branco, Angela Uchoa
description Methodological issues in psychology consist of a key aspect for the scientific development of the discipline. In this paper I elaborate on the reasons why I partially agree with Toomela's ideas, and why I also disagree with some of his arguments. The convergence refers to the need for a radical change concerning the widespread use of methodologies that has been typical of mainstream psychology, which still flavors too positivist and pseudo-quantitative, overlooking the central relevance of theory for scientific development. The divergence resides in Toomela's insistence to oppose what he designates as "the North American" to "the German-Austrian" scientific thinking: from my perspective, the misuse of cultural categories can only lead to misguided and unconstructive dichotomies that entails a naive concept of culture, and do not contribute to scientific development. From a contemporary systemic approach, complex issues deserve more sophisticated analysis.
doi_str_mv 10.1007/s12124-007-9012-0
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68490906</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>68490906</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c299t-72ed47cb9b41ba90cbc3dc4593ccfa3adf28583484f66df2a571d7e6dba2b3193</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpFkEtLw0AUhQdRbK3-ADeSlbvRO4_MYynFqlBwo-thXoGRSRMziei_N7UFV_ccOOdw-RC6JnBHAOR9IZRQjmeJNRCK4QQtiWYCs1rI0z9NMa-BLtBFKR8AtRKanaMFkVpTJdQSwXrK4zTYXPmu7XP8TmOKpbK7UBWf4m5MTfJViF8xd307-0t01thc4tXxrtD75vFt_Yy3r08v64ct9lTrEUsaA5feaceJsxq88yx4XmvmfWOZDQ1VtWJc8UaI2dhakiCjCM5Sx-bHV-j2sNsP3ecUy2jaVHzM2e5iNxUjFNegQcxBcgj6oStliI3ph9Ta4ccQMHtM5oDJ7OUek4G5c3Mcn1wbw3_jyIX9Ak19Y5c</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>68490906</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Cultural complexities and scientific development</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>SpringerNature Journals</source><creator>Branco, Angela Uchoa</creator><creatorcontrib>Branco, Angela Uchoa</creatorcontrib><description>Methodological issues in psychology consist of a key aspect for the scientific development of the discipline. In this paper I elaborate on the reasons why I partially agree with Toomela's ideas, and why I also disagree with some of his arguments. The convergence refers to the need for a radical change concerning the widespread use of methodologies that has been typical of mainstream psychology, which still flavors too positivist and pseudo-quantitative, overlooking the central relevance of theory for scientific development. The divergence resides in Toomela's insistence to oppose what he designates as "the North American" to "the German-Austrian" scientific thinking: from my perspective, the misuse of cultural categories can only lead to misguided and unconstructive dichotomies that entails a naive concept of culture, and do not contribute to scientific development. From a contemporary systemic approach, complex issues deserve more sophisticated analysis.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1932-4502</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1936-3567</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s12124-007-9012-0</identifier><identifier>PMID: 17992868</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States</publisher><subject>Austria ; Behavioral Research - history ; Behavioral Sciences - history ; Culture ; Germany ; History, 20th Century ; Humans ; Mental Processes ; North America ; Psychology, Experimental - history ; Psychology, Social - history</subject><ispartof>Integrative psychological &amp; behavioral science, 2007-03, Vol.41 (1), p.41-49</ispartof><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c299t-72ed47cb9b41ba90cbc3dc4593ccfa3adf28583484f66df2a571d7e6dba2b3193</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c299t-72ed47cb9b41ba90cbc3dc4593ccfa3adf28583484f66df2a571d7e6dba2b3193</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>314,780,784,27924,27925</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17992868$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Branco, Angela Uchoa</creatorcontrib><title>Cultural complexities and scientific development</title><title>Integrative psychological &amp; behavioral science</title><addtitle>Integr Psychol Behav Sci</addtitle><description>Methodological issues in psychology consist of a key aspect for the scientific development of the discipline. In this paper I elaborate on the reasons why I partially agree with Toomela's ideas, and why I also disagree with some of his arguments. The convergence refers to the need for a radical change concerning the widespread use of methodologies that has been typical of mainstream psychology, which still flavors too positivist and pseudo-quantitative, overlooking the central relevance of theory for scientific development. The divergence resides in Toomela's insistence to oppose what he designates as "the North American" to "the German-Austrian" scientific thinking: from my perspective, the misuse of cultural categories can only lead to misguided and unconstructive dichotomies that entails a naive concept of culture, and do not contribute to scientific development. From a contemporary systemic approach, complex issues deserve more sophisticated analysis.</description><subject>Austria</subject><subject>Behavioral Research - history</subject><subject>Behavioral Sciences - history</subject><subject>Culture</subject><subject>Germany</subject><subject>History, 20th Century</subject><subject>Humans</subject><subject>Mental Processes</subject><subject>North America</subject><subject>Psychology, Experimental - history</subject><subject>Psychology, Social - history</subject><issn>1932-4502</issn><issn>1936-3567</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNpFkEtLw0AUhQdRbK3-ADeSlbvRO4_MYynFqlBwo-thXoGRSRMziei_N7UFV_ccOOdw-RC6JnBHAOR9IZRQjmeJNRCK4QQtiWYCs1rI0z9NMa-BLtBFKR8AtRKanaMFkVpTJdQSwXrK4zTYXPmu7XP8TmOKpbK7UBWf4m5MTfJViF8xd307-0t01thc4tXxrtD75vFt_Yy3r08v64ct9lTrEUsaA5feaceJsxq88yx4XmvmfWOZDQ1VtWJc8UaI2dhakiCjCM5Sx-bHV-j2sNsP3ecUy2jaVHzM2e5iNxUjFNegQcxBcgj6oStliI3ph9Ta4ccQMHtM5oDJ7OUek4G5c3Mcn1wbw3_jyIX9Ak19Y5c</recordid><startdate>20070301</startdate><enddate>20070301</enddate><creator>Branco, Angela Uchoa</creator><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20070301</creationdate><title>Cultural complexities and scientific development</title><author>Branco, Angela Uchoa</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c299t-72ed47cb9b41ba90cbc3dc4593ccfa3adf28583484f66df2a571d7e6dba2b3193</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><topic>Austria</topic><topic>Behavioral Research - history</topic><topic>Behavioral Sciences - history</topic><topic>Culture</topic><topic>Germany</topic><topic>History, 20th Century</topic><topic>Humans</topic><topic>Mental Processes</topic><topic>North America</topic><topic>Psychology, Experimental - history</topic><topic>Psychology, Social - history</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Branco, Angela Uchoa</creatorcontrib><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Integrative psychological &amp; behavioral science</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Branco, Angela Uchoa</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Cultural complexities and scientific development</atitle><jtitle>Integrative psychological &amp; behavioral science</jtitle><addtitle>Integr Psychol Behav Sci</addtitle><date>2007-03-01</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>41</volume><issue>1</issue><spage>41</spage><epage>49</epage><pages>41-49</pages><issn>1932-4502</issn><eissn>1936-3567</eissn><abstract>Methodological issues in psychology consist of a key aspect for the scientific development of the discipline. In this paper I elaborate on the reasons why I partially agree with Toomela's ideas, and why I also disagree with some of his arguments. The convergence refers to the need for a radical change concerning the widespread use of methodologies that has been typical of mainstream psychology, which still flavors too positivist and pseudo-quantitative, overlooking the central relevance of theory for scientific development. The divergence resides in Toomela's insistence to oppose what he designates as "the North American" to "the German-Austrian" scientific thinking: from my perspective, the misuse of cultural categories can only lead to misguided and unconstructive dichotomies that entails a naive concept of culture, and do not contribute to scientific development. From a contemporary systemic approach, complex issues deserve more sophisticated analysis.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pmid>17992868</pmid><doi>10.1007/s12124-007-9012-0</doi><tpages>9</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 1932-4502
ispartof Integrative psychological & behavioral science, 2007-03, Vol.41 (1), p.41-49
issn 1932-4502
1936-3567
language eng
recordid cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_68490906
source MEDLINE; SpringerNature Journals
subjects Austria
Behavioral Research - history
Behavioral Sciences - history
Culture
Germany
History, 20th Century
Humans
Mental Processes
North America
Psychology, Experimental - history
Psychology, Social - history
title Cultural complexities and scientific development
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-21T12%3A56%3A24IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Cultural%20complexities%20and%20scientific%20development&rft.jtitle=Integrative%20psychological%20&%20behavioral%20science&rft.au=Branco,%20Angela%20Uchoa&rft.date=2007-03-01&rft.volume=41&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=41&rft.epage=49&rft.pages=41-49&rft.issn=1932-4502&rft.eissn=1936-3567&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s12124-007-9012-0&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E68490906%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=68490906&rft_id=info:pmid/17992868&rfr_iscdi=true